Define white nationalism from the ground up says the quiet voice of reason.

It may seem arrogant to claim to be the voice of reason, but I feel as though I am astornomically closer than everyone else to the truth, even if I am as prideful, paranoid and frightenned as most. Politics has started to be more active in my life and I have been shocked to find no one thinks as strongly about subjects as I do, I am concerned. Once again I am drunk and decided to share my qualm about you, with you.

Like physics the solution is always simple.

For instance religion..

Evil is caused by selfishness, if people are indoctrinated to believe they spend an eternity of pleasure in heaven for being good and an eternity in hell for being bad they will be good instead of selfish when the situation arises as pleasure multiplied by infinity is better than whatever temporay pleasure they can gain by being selfish down here on earth.

Or liberty and justice.

Good is when people do good when it isn't at the expense of others. Thus if there is no tyrant at the top executing and torturing innocent people as he wishes and taxing everyone into poverty so he and his thugs can live in opulent splendour in palaces full of naked whores and wasting resources better used things would be better. So it is a good idea if people realise how great these ideas are and how much good they do and put in collective effort to make them a reality even if it means personal sacrifice.

Achieving these objectives is sometimes difficult, but the objectives can be defined and aimed for at the very least.

What is the logical argument for white nationalism? Why does it do good? Looking through my previous posts it seems I am a tragic tale of a naive someone who recognises the merits of truth and with some desire to do good though misinformed by liberal society who is coerced by white nationalism, but who slowly edges away from both before finally declaring himself to be an idealistic loner. I'm 20 at the moment so I have plenty of time to come up with conclusions, what will the fate of my beliefs be?

Re: Define white nationalism from the ground up says the quiet voice of reason.

The ideological journey we take. I've spent my youth looking to understand the world, and I never, ever imagined I'd end up here!

I've always tested my ideas against what I observe, and I suppose this is why I'm here. Technically I'm not strictly a WN, but I do support the cause.

There are two reasons that I support the cause.

The first reason is that political correctness is wrong. Its morally bankrupt, elitist, dictatorial and scientifically flawed. This politically correct dogma has spawned the 'pro-diversity' and 'multi-racialist' ideology. These ideologies coming from flawed beliefs are therefore flawed in themselves, hence I cannot support them, and must oppose them.

Even if there is utterly no point to white nationalism, political correctness and its false ideals must be debunked and shown to be false. Even if there was no point to saving your race, I would still be here, because multi-racialism is based on half-truths, misconceptions and blatant lies.

The second reason, is that as living being, we have different levels of 'identity'.
We are mammals, and share characteristics common to all mammals.
We are primates and share characteristics common to all primates.
We are human and share characteristics common to all humans.
We are white, and share characteristcs common to all whites.
We are of a particular culture, and share characteristics common to that culture.
We are individuals, and share characteristics common to no-one.
Anti-racists stop at the human level. I used to stop there too, until I realized, that my race, culture and individual circumstances, both genetic and environmental did play a part in who I was as a person. I was more than human. It was what made me different from the other people, the other primates and other mammals that defined the 'I'.

Multi-racialists deny the 'I'.

Now, the purpose of living creatures is to reproduce themselves. To gain, in essence, an immortality by allowing their image to transcend and exist beyond their own finite life span.
It is cultural and genetic reproduction that allows the past peoples of Europe to be echoed in us, not just in genetics but in culture. Extrapolate this forward, and if I preserve my race and my heritage, then I know that there will be people like me in the future. Anti-racists don't care if their likeness is never seen again.
If you value yourself as an individual and if you value the purpose of life, then you cannot possibly consider the desire to preserve that which made you what you are, as 'evil' and 'hateful'

Of course, it is all subjective. What does it matter? In the end, there is no cosmic judge (some will disagree), but, I am created from life, so I will stay true to the life process.

Lastly, I believe the other noble function of humanity, is to alleviate suffering and advance ourselves and become greater beings. I can't see this happening of the white race declines. We are capable, as a race of doing so much, and I fear that this capability will be lost if we are. Perhaps another race will take up the slack, but I prefer not to take the risk.

Re: Define white nationalism from the ground up says the quiet voice of reason.

Quote:

The second reason, is that as living being, we have different levels of 'identity'.
We are mammals, and share characteristics common to all mammals.
We are primates and share characteristics common to all primates.
We are human and share characteristics common to all humans.
We are white, and share characteristcs common to all whites.
We are of a particular culture, and share characteristics common to that culture.
We are individuals, and share characteristics common to no-one.
Anti-racists stop at the human level. I used to stop there too, until I realized, that my race, culture and individual circumstances, both genetic and environmental did play a part in who I was as a person. I was more than human. It was what made me different from the other people, the other primates and other mammals that defined the 'I'.

Multi-racialists deny the 'I'.

That's funny. I would think it is part of the White Nationalist ideology not go go down as far as the individual and for the oppositon to be more considerate of the individual. I know I am. I completely understand the breakdown as you have it and agree. Aside from being human mammals, each of us are defined by our race and that is further molded by our individual identity and characteristics. Some more cavalier than others. Being the individual and as you say defining ourselves by the I, it is this reason that I consider everyone on an individual basis. Yes, I factor in their race as part of their identity, but I don't make any judgment about the individual until I learn more. But from there, I think it comes down to a question of which do you put more stock into when relating to a person; the individual or the racial or cultural group that they ascribe?

I mean, if you want to describe the setiment of all human beings being equal without breakdown from there, perhaps I see what you mean. But if you were to talk of the setiment that each of us humans are not the same and just because Hitler wanted to do away with Jews and rule Europe, don't mean I'll assume this about all Germans or becuase the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor I won't think Asians are as willing to kill Americans. It's as saying despite Arab terrorist killing my brother over five years ago, it had little bearing on my feelings of a cute little arab girl I used to see just under four years ago. So I go deeper than the human level, and beyond the racial level and even further through the cultural level and see things on an individual level. The actions of a few, some or even a lot of individuals of a racial or cultural group is not linked to the actions of all individuals in the group.

Re: Define white nationalism from the ground up says the quiet voice of reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Gunner

That's funny. I would think it is part of the White Nationalist ideology not go go down as far as the individual and for the oppositon to be more considerate of the individual. I know I am. I completely understand the breakdown as you have it and agree. Aside from being human mammals, each of us are defined by our race and that is further molded by our individual identity and characteristics. Some more cavalier than others. Being the individual and as you say defining ourselves by the I, it is this reason that I consider everyone on an individual basis. Yes, I factor in their race as part of their identity, but I don't make any judgment about the individual until I learn more. But from there, I think it comes down to a question of which do you put more stock into when relating to a person; the individual or the racial or cultural group that they ascribe?

I mean, if you want to describe the setiment of all human beings being equal without breakdown from there, perhaps I see what you mean. But if you were to talk of the setiment that each of us humans are not the same and just because Hitler wanted to do away with Jews and rule Europe, don't mean I'll assume this about all Germans or becuase the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor I won't think Asians are as willing to kill Americans. It's as saying despite Arab terrorist killing my brother over five years ago, it had little bearing on my feelings of a cute little arab girl I used to see just under four years ago. So I go deeper than the human level, and beyond the racial level and even further through the cultural level and see things on an individual level. The actions of a few, some or even a lot of individuals of a racial or cultural group is not linked to the actions of all individuals in the group.

Understand what I'm saying?

Yes, I do understand. My point was that each individual is a composite of attributes and traits, each trait belongs at one of the levels I defined.

So, to use a common anti-racist argument : We all beed red.
That stands at a level higher than mammalian. Alll mammals bleed red. It does not define me as a human, or as an individual, and because it is at this level, that fact alone does not make another person closer to me than a dog. That is, if someone bleeds red, it has nothing to do with them as an individual, but their classification as belonging to the animal kingdom.

Now, lets take a universal human attribute, doesnt matter which one, say laughter. There we have a case, were I can relate to humans with this attribute, but not to my dog. People understand jokes, dogs dont. My ability to appreciate humour, is a result of my humanity, not my individualness. Although, as an individual, I may have a much better sense of humour.

At the racial level, we have culture, appearance, familiarity, kinship. So I can relate to other whites with respect to our position on this earth, living in technological societies, in Christian societies etc.
When I'm amonsts others of the same ethnic background, I can relate to them in a way that I cant to others.
Again, the same is true at the family level, social circle level, and individual level.
It appears that you were arguing that in the end, everything is at the individual level.

The argument is that a portion of attributes belong at each level. So if we look at races, we are looking at the sum total of all attributes going down to race. So all races are mammals, all are primates, all are human. At the race level, the same is true, but we can now add a few more. All are white, all come from christian based morality, all live in a technological society, all have someone similar appearance, all have characteristics within certain limits.

However, if we attribute everything at the individual level, then we look at people at the human level, and say, family level, there should be no difference. Using your model, I wouldn't have any more similarity to other family members, than anyone else in the world. It seems you are speaking from the point of view, that this is how you prefer to look at people, rather than putting forward a model which actually explains anything.

Many traits I have, such as a tendancy to bounce my leg when I sit, my quiet disposition, intelligence, even though they exist in me, aren't unique to me. I have these attributes, because I'm a member of a family which has these.

White Nationalism is opposed to extreme individualism, because individualism (everything about me is unique) is not only logically flawed, but leads people to ignore the sources of what makes them what they are. Hence, for me to adopt that position, I would have to ignore all the cultural and genetic influences that have shaped me. People are unique, but they belong to groups as well.

Can you judge me by my race? No, not accurately, but I do believe you can make inferences and estimates. Even though you cannot determine EXACTLY what an individual is like based on their racial and cultural background, it clearly does give you an idea as to what tendancies they will have, and how likely they will behaive in a particular way.

If someone was to tell you, they are Chinese. You wouldn't really know about that person as an individual, but you would be able to hazard a guess, that they would not be boisterous, unlikely to be violent, will look chinese, will probably have a particular morality shared by chinese, etc etc.

Re: Define white nationalism from the ground up says the quiet voice of reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Gunner

it is this reason that I consider everyone on an individual basis.

Tell me, when do you find the time to judge each of the 300,000,000 people of America on an individual basis?

You are doing the same thing you did in the previous thread, you are saying what you think the answer should be, rather than actually dealing with reality.

Answer this one, what do you do, when it's 2am in the morning, you are walking home, on your own, with no one else around, and you see a group of 50 shaven headed men, all of them big, all of them muscular, walking towards you, carrying broken bottles, sticks, baseball bats etc.?

Do you look at them, make no judgement, and decide to talk to them all on an individual basis to learn more about them before you decide whether they are friend or foe, or do you make a snap decision about them, based on their race, clothes, image, body language etc?

Those 50 guys could be anyone, they could be a group of stewards from a sporting event, who are carrying those things to the nearest garbage bin, to dispose of them, or they could be a gang of violent thugs wanting to pound you into the dirt.

You don't deal with them as individuals, you look at them, and use the shortcuts in your head to catagorize them, and then you act accordingly.

This is what stereotypes are, they are formulaic, and simplified conceptions, opinions, or images, used as part of our natural survival mechanism.

There are billions of people on this planet, and you don't even have time to fully get to know one of them, so you use the signs and the symbols that you have learned to prejudge the ones you meet, to sort them into groups, safe, dangerous, friendly, boring, happy, sad, etc., and then you focus in on the groups that appeal to you, and then, and only then, do you even begin to consider the individual.

Now one of those things we use to determine a grouping of people is race. That does not mean everyone within a certain race is the same, no one says that (except antis putting forward a false argument of their own construction to fight against, rather than dealing with what we are really saying) but reasearch has shown us that race is a good indicator to a persons personality and behavioural patterns.

Now, over thousands of years of evolution each race has developed it's own unique form, which has lead to it's own unique cultures, and the majority of people self identify with, and prefer their own culture, those of their own people.

This is Nationalism.

Nationalism doesn't write the laws of nature, it just recognises them.